Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39297414›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2024

A Comparative Study on the Application of Robotic Hair Restoration Technology Versus Traditional Follicular Unit Excision in Male Androgenetic Alopecia.

Yifei Zhu, Kai Yang, Jui-Ming Lin, Chunya Ni, Yue Zhang, Zheng Li, Qingmei Liu, Yinghui Zhou, Jinran Lin, Wenyu Wu

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yifei ZhuDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Kai YangDepartment of Dermatology, Jing'an District Central Hospital, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Jui-Ming LinDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4394-8873
Chunya NiDepartment of Dermatology, Jing'an District Central Hospital, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Yue ZhangDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Zheng LiDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Qingmei LiuDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Yinghui ZhouDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Jinran LinDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.
Wenyu WuDepartment of Dermatology, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7540-4953

Funding

Leading Talent Project of Shanghai Health Commission 2022LJ017Shanghai Hair Medical Engineering Technology Research Center, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission 19DZ2250500Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Western Medicine Guidance Program 19411962400Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Center Clinical Three Year Action Plan SHDC2020CR2033B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe robotic hair transplant technology, ARTAS, has a series of fine mechanical structure and an intelligent recognition system that allows it to independently select hair follicular units (FUs) and effectively harvest hair. After entering China in 2016, ARTAS has attracted the attention of hair transplant surgeons and hair loss patients given its advantages in a short learning curve and simple operation.

objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety between the ARTAS system and follicular unit excision (FUE) in the treatment of male androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and to further promote the improvement and upgrading of ARTAS technology concerning hair transplantation.

methodsThirteen Chinese male patients with Norwood-Hamilton II-IV AGA aged 25-35 years were enrolled in this study. The donor site of each patient was randomly divided into left and right regions, receiving ARTAS on one side and FUE on the other. Yield, transection, and discard rates of hair FUs from both sides were compared. Safety of the procedures in whole, as well as follow-up results were investigated and evaluated.

resultsThe total yield rate on the ARTAS side was lower than on the FUE side (82.05% vs. 90.03%, p > 0.05); the total discard rate on the ARTAS side was higher than on the FUE side (10.71% vs. 5.46%, p < 0.05); the total transection rate on the ARTAS side was lower than on the FUE side (13.17% vs. 13.96%, p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in patient satisfaction (efficacy), and no side effects or complications were detected during or after all surgeries.

conclusionThe current iteration of Robotic hair transplant technology is effective and safe, and can be recommended for AGA hair transplantation surgery.

Indexed as

AlopeciaHair FollicleRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultChinaHairHumansMaleTissue and Organ HarvestingTreatment OutcomealopeciaARTASfolliclesFUEhair restorationrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39297414
PMCPMC11626372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.